Believing that God exists does not come from supernatural faith--supernatural faith presupposes knowledge of God, who can be known through natural means (cf. Rom. 1:19-20, Vat. Conc. I, Dei Filius, Can. 2.1). Supernatural faith is believing His revelation solely on the authority of He who reveals it without having to "prove" it by means of the senses(cf. Vat. Conc. I, Dei Filius, Can. 3.2; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 13.)

Supernatural faith is believing His revelation solely on the authority of He who reveals it without having to "prove" it by means of the senses(cf. Vat. Conc. I, Dei Filius, Can. 3.2; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 13.)

Good points throughout. But PLEASE, the preposition "of" requires that its object be expressed as an object "Him," not, no, never never "He."

Is this from the document itself? Troubling. The translators need elementary grammar lessons.

"Of He" is simply bad grammar. You want to capitalize it because it refers to God, sure, but not "of He" rather "of Him."

Supernatural faith is believing His revelation solely on the authority of Him who reveals it without having to "prove" it by means of the senses(cf. Vat. Conc. I, Dei Filius, Can. 3.2; John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 13.)

Mr. Warren,

You write, "The descent of diverse creatures from common ancestors cannot be an issue." Can you recommend a book that weeds through what is and isn't a debatable issue on this subject? I mean are we not supposed to even question that all living things evolved from fish? I don't think that's what you meant. But what did you mean? I'd love an explanation, a recommended read, or both. Thanks for the insightful article.

It's difficult to separate criticism of scientists wandering into philosophy and scientists exercising their competence in science itself.

Most scientists, especially in this age of specialization, are competent enough to realize they have their area of professional expertise. Usually religion is, for them, an individual practice. No longer do we have many individuals trained in both theology and the sciences.

As for speculation on what Darwin was, was not, and/or claimed to be, I think to state he was an atheist is extravagant, especially when he himself confessed directly to being an agnostic.

As for the question about evolutionary descent from fish, it's easy. Fish and other vertebrates share a common evolutionary ancestor. Modern fish have evolved as have apes. One cannot say human beings (for example) are descended from either.

One cannot say humans descended from either fish or apes? Isn't that what evolutionary biology hypothesizes? Or at least that all living creatures have a common ancestry?

"One cannot say humans descended from either fish or apes?"

Not from modern ones. Nearly all modern vertebrates are the product of their own evolutionary lines. The so-called "living fossils" have not changed, it is thought, because they are supremely adapted as they are.

"Isn't that what evolutionary biology hypothesizes?"

It would be the height of hubris to assume all branches lead to humans. Common ancestry is what biologists would verify through genetics. Genetics tell us the common ancestor of humans and apes lived millions of years ago. Humans and fish, hundreds of millions.

So what evidence is there that we have common ancestors with fish?

So what evidence is there that we have common ancestors with fish?

Morphology gives the outward clues. All vertebrates share a basic structure: internal skeleton, basic arrangement of organs, pre-natal development, and the like--things far different from insects, mollusks, and other groups of animals.

The evolutionary model would suggest that the class of fish that developed lobed fins and fingers began to move to the land to take advantage of a mostly animal-free environment. Amphibians to toothed reptiles to small mammals hiding under dinosaurs' feet to us.

Modern genetics tells us more. In mapping genomes (the genetic codes) of different animals, can also compare genetic similarities of various animals.

These are interesting facts that point toward the evolutionary theory. But it doesn't seem they exclude other explanations. Similarities in animals, genetic or otherwise, don't necessarily make them all related. These similarities might just as well point toward basic building blocks for life that exist within species that have been created unto themselves.

"These are interesting facts that point toward the evolutionary theory. But it doesn't seem they exclude other explanations."

It's more accurately described as an evolutionary model. Scientists develop models to best explain observed data. If you're saying that some kind of automatic creation better explains the fossil record and the genetic code, what we see in nature would contradict that.

However, if God just made it all up to fool scientists, that's a possibility, sure. But that wouldn't be science.

I don't believe God would try to deceive. I hold no hard and fast opinions on these matters, but am skeptical of those who compile evidence to support a theory, rather than remaining open to all possibilities. And it does seem that many possibilities remain regarding the evidence that has been compiled. But I originally weighed in hoping for a book recommendation from the author of the article, one that would approach the subject from a skeptic's point of view, but with respect for the science that exists on the matter. I prefer not to take leaps of faith in any area but religion.

As a human endeavor, scientific inquiry is not immune from human foibles: self-deception, hidebound conservative views, cliques, shutting out dissent, and the like.

It's important to realize that evolution underwent its period of skeptical inquiry about a century to 150 years ago. It remains the best model (not a theory, note) to explain observed phenomena. As a model it continues to be refined by scientists. No serious challenger has yet to arise to better model what naturalists observe.

Scientists generally remain skeptical of new theories, so openness to unreasonable possibilities pretty much won't be found among most professionals. We see the same thing in religion: orthodoxy defending itself against the fringes.

"I originally weighed in hoping for a book recommendation from the author of the article, one that would approach the subject from a skeptic's point of view, but with respect for the science that exists on the matter. I prefer not to take leaps of faith in any area but religion."

Let me ask this: if you wanted to get reliable information about religion, would you rely more on orthodoxy or on religion's detractors? There are good explanations for evolution, but you generally won't find them among the detractors of science.

I took an undergrad class in evolution. Every popular science book I've read treated evolution as a given. My recommendation would be to browse the Amazon website and read the reviews. From there, find a book that reviewers ackowledge as giving the best scientific explanation. If you want to continue this discussion, please feel free to surf to my web site and contact me by e-mail. I'd prefer not to further monpolize the thread here.

Thanks for the insightful debate. What's your website? Regarding the above quotation, that goes to my point about the difference between science and religion. A skeptic who's honest about the facts is science's greatest ally, they keep searching for the truth until the evidence is indisputable. Religion requires a leap of faith and must be approached differently. It seems that a lot of scientific givens these days require a leap of faith longer than religion ever did. I'll take an honest skeptic over a true believer for scientific inquiry any day.

Mr. Warren:

First, thank you for lonely fight against the socialist, politically correct commsars who have taken over your unfortunate country. Canada is more and more a foreign country. You are one of the few voices of sanity left north of the border.

Second, as Catholics we should not let ourselves be lured into the Evangelical trap of thinking that faith and reason are opposed to each other. St. Thomas said it best. Faith and reason cannot contradict each other. Truth is one. Let us never forget that.

Third, let us separate what is valid in Darwin from what is not. Evolution through natural selection is a robust scientific theory. It appears, so far, to be valid. This should not bother the faithful. Who are we to judge how God achieves His creation? If he acts through natural selection, that is His business. We are not here to judge the Lord, but to understand His work as best as we can. If Darwin sheds light on the details of creation, more power to him.

Fourth, I think you miss Anslem's essential point. Faith precedes reason, in a very profound way that Anslem understood very well. What, after all, is reason? It is using the human mind to try to see, and understand, the patterns of nature. The whole enterprise of Western science is based on the assumption that the world is rational and that our minds can understand that rationality. That assumption is, in itself, deeply non-rational. Why do we assume that the world is subject to rational laws? We assume that, because St. John tells us that the divine Word created the world and created us. We can understand the world, because we share its nature. If we do not make this assumption, science gets nowhere. Science is based on this assumption. Science, in short, is grounded in faith.

August, thank you for a calm and generous discussion. Do a google search for "Catholic Sensibility" and you'll find it easily enough.

"It seems that a lot of scientific givens these days require a leap of faith longer than religion ever did. I'll take an honest skeptic over a true believer for scientific inquiry any day."

Perhaps so. But we can keep in mind that the edifice of science has been built up over centuries. You and I and the rest of us are coming in with a lot of backstory already built up. Skepticism also takes a lot of energy. Most people save it for the really big things.

Good, respectful comments all around.

I understand that Catholics belive that faith and science go hand in hand. That is what I think B16 was saying in Regensburg back in 2006, but was drowned out by the reaction to his reference to a quote on Islam.

And I think I understand that faith must precede reason. One of the beliefs you must have in order to accept the modern science method is the law of non-contradiction -- that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be not-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.
All logic depends on this principle. Rational thought and meaningful discourse demand it. To deny it is to deny all truth.

So how did this law come about? How can we be scientifically certain that it's universal? How can we prove it without having to rely on it to present our data?

So if it must be accepted without proof -- and it must -- then faith must precede reason.

Is that about right?